Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: tuck30 Date: Jun 15, 2004 5:53am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

there is no cpmparison...dat is much better...its what the pros use...mini disc should be your desparation move

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ryan Schweitzer Date: Jun 15, 2004 10:48pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

Well, Mini Disc will be giving DAT a run for the money (literally), when they come out with their Hi-MD format, which will allow a person to store a gigabyte of audio data on a disc (as mentioned by a previous poster on this thread), meaning it will now be possible to record uncompressed, unadulterated PCM(!!) onto a Hi-MD disc (a feature I think HiMD decks will have), the same uncompressed, unadulterated PCM that DAT uses and most tapers lust after (why, I dunno, since 74 minute ATRAC4.5-compressed MD audio sounds exactly as good as DAT to my ears) :).

I just don't understand why most jam-band tapers get so damn fetish-istic over uncompressed PCM and get their panties in a wad over digital audio compression. Hey, audio compression is the future, and it's already here. Quite frankly, get used to it. And, most digital compression sounds DAMN GOOD, like the PCM source wasn't even compressed, i.e. ATRAC 4.5 (the 74-minute version). Heck, I've even heard 320Kbps MP3 audio that sounds like DAT. It all depends on if the CoDec does a good job (most codecs for one format of compression do not perform alike).

If most jam-band tapers have such an unhealthy obsession against audio compression, then why the heck can't they go back to recording on analog open-reel 1/4" tape at 7 1/2 or 15 IPS? (I guess this would hamper attempts to distribute recordings on the 'net ;} )You know, even uncompressed digital PCM audio has its limits and degrades the audio too by sampling & quantizing, unlike analog, which has a near-infinite molecular recording resoultion (molecular refering to the single molecules making up the magnetic coating on a tape)!

And HiMD can be had for quite a bit less money as well ($300 or so, compared to $700-2000 for a DAT deck!). I'd go that route when it comes available instead of DAT, since DAT is really a shaky, unreliable format not really worth the extra cost, IMO, for recording (I've heard horror stories of DAT tapes recorded on a Sony deck being practically unplayable on a Panasonic/Tascam/other brand DAT deck, due to a difference in the angle that the helical recording heads uses between Sony and other DAT decks), DAT is very prone to dropouts, due to its teeny 4mm tape width inside, and, oh--DAT is almost 20 years old, too.

Don't believe my accusations about the instability of DAT? Check out this link:

http://www.irdial.com/w34.htm

Also check out this link, which explains the fallibility of digital audio in general:

http://www.irdial.com/w33.htm

They claim in both links (which are somewhat dated--from 92' & '94 respectively, but the info is pretty much still the same) that DAT degrades when copying from one deck to another, but I somewhat disagree. Obviously they weren't using a coaxial or optical digital interface between the two decks! :):) Methinks they might of been using the analog ins and outs of each deck, plus these articles were written 10-12 years ago, so I think AD & DA conversion circuitry in DAT decks then wasn't as good as they are now.

But anyhoo, DAT maybe a good quality format (when it works right and isn't the difficult, ornery format that it is most of the time), especially if you use computer backup data-grade DDS cassettes (same as DAT but with higher-grade tape loaded), but IMHO, DAT's too damn expensive, no thanks to the RIAA's unfortunately successful efforts to ban it as a consumer format (in the fear of piracy) when it was first released in the US in '87, thereby squashing Sony's (and others) marketing efforts to make it an affordable consumer format like VHS.

So, to recoup the losses for the RIAA's wrath, most DAT decks cost an arm and a leg, when they could of cost as much as a entry-level MD recorder today. Damn RIAA, they have killed or severely injured other great technologies before Napster. All in the name of Good Capitalism (tm). ;)

In my smug opinion, I'd either wait for Hi-MD (DAT quality recording at MD prices), or if you want to be really hardcore, invest in a good full-track 2-channel analog 1/4" open-reel deck like a Tascam 22-2, an Ampex AG-440 or a Studer-Revox A77 (kidding!) :):):):)...

Pardon my pissy opinionated rant,
Ryan

This post was modified by Ryan Schweitzer on 2004-06-16 05:48:07

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffirdial-discs Date: Aug 19, 2004 11:53am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

"Methinks they might of been using the analog ins and outs of each deck"

This is incorrect. The copies made in that case were via the Digital ins and outs; it was done that way because in theory since its just numbers flying between the machines there should be no loss in quality, but in the case of DAT to DAT at that time it was certainly not true that there was no loss in quality, and the mastering engineers recognised this.

The mastering machines everyone was using at the time were SONY DTC 1000-ES DAT machines. They were the standard for DAT mastering at the time, and all the suites had them.

If you made a copy via the Analogue ins and outs between two DAT machines, the result was BETTER than if you used the Digital ins and outs. The explanation for this was that the error correction used by the DAT players would corrupt the data on each generation of Digital copying, becoming audible on the first generation.

Those are the facts of what it was like to compile from DAT to DAT in those days. Part of the reason why I wrote and distributed those essays back then was that we got burned trying to compile a double LP. We compiled the production master in our studio only to realize that the compiled tape sounded dreadful when we got to the mastering suite. The engineer for the session on hearing the DAT play immediately said "how was this DAT compiled?" because he knew what the sound of a DAT to DAT digital copy sounded like - Bad.

Thankfully, we had the original studio masters to work from, and we re-compiled the LP onto U-Matic 1630 (via the Analogue ins and outs of course) and the session was a sucess.

After that, we never used DAT again. We bought an ex-BBC Studer B67 in console, and never had any more mastering problems.

There are other stories I could tell you about DATs that refused to play on a DTC 1000 ES because they were recorded on a different model of machine. Recycled DAT tapes suffering from drop outs where the unerased music from the previous session would pop up on a compiled master. I could tell you about the wasted lacquers, wasted time, the abandoned sessions, the wasted money, but I'm sure you can imagine what it was like.

This post was modified by irdial-discs on 2004-08-19 18:53:27

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Jun 15, 2004 11:49pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

Hi-MD is not a dat replacement. A gigabyte of data is not enough to hold most shows at 16/44.1. Therefore, you would still have to change tapes in the middle of the show, which is the major problem with md, NOT the ATRAC compression (although that certainly doesn't help). If he is performing in the show, how is he supposed to change tapes in the middle of a set.

Your claims that Hi-MD is more reliable are also unfounded. No one knows how reliable Hi-MD will be, as with most new technologies I'm sure there will be kinks to work out and I certianly would not assume it will be more reliable than DAT at rollout. And I think you are vastly overstating the problems with DAT decks. If they were so unreliable, they wouldn't have become the standard in audio taping circles. And like the poster said above, it's what the pros use.

Also, how do you think that Hi-MD is a cheaper alternative? Will the Hi-MD discs be < 3 bucks. Somehow I doubt it. A new Hi-MD player will probably be had for *slightly* less than a new M1, and more than a good conditioned D8, and have a consumer grade AD chip in it, as compared to the professional grade chip in the M1. I don't know where you got your price range either. DAT decks haven't cost that much for years. Even as long as 4 years ago I got a D8 with low hours for $450, now a comparable deck is even cheaper - sometimes as low as $250.

If you are looking for an alternative to DAT, look into solid state recorders such as the Sound Devices 722. That's how the field is moving forward - to 24/192 capability. Not BACKWARD to lossy ATRAC.

This post was modified by thoman8r on 2004-06-16 06:49:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ryan Schweitzer Date: Jun 16, 2004 11:41am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

thoman8r:

Well, doesn't a DAT user have to change out tapes in a long show as well, even if it's a 90 minute cassette during a longer set? At least HiMD will have a smidgen more recording time, about 100 minutes, if it's being recorded with 44.1/16 Stereo PCM, (which usually uses up 10 megabytes per minute). I could see having to change out a 74-min MD during a set, but doesn't the same go for a 60 or 90 minute DAT?

Also, I have confidence that HiMD will be quite reliable, considering it isn't a dropout-prone tiny-assed 4mm strip of plastic with highly-refined rust coated on it being dragged across a spinning helical recording head at 1500 rpm.

Plus, Sony's technologies always seem to be quite reliable in general. I haven't seen a unreliable stinker from Sony yet, Sony's only weakness is their inability to market their technologies (ie Betamax, a technically superior format to VHS, but marketed shoddily) , usually they're quite well-engineered.

And if DAT is the standard that pros use, then why do HHB and Marantz have professional-grade MD recorders in their product lines? I've heard that NPR uses MD extensively for field recording, plus MD in general is quite extensively used in the radio broadcasting industry in general. MD is just as good as DAT for pro recording, IMHO, otherwise the radio industry wouldn't use MD. MD has pretty much replaced the endless-loop tape cart in radio, although automated hard-disk based systems are supplanting MD in radiuo broadcasting.

As for the cost of HiMD discs, doesn't a 90 min DAT cassette cost around $6? I would assume that a HiMD disc would at the most cost about the same, probably even less, so as not to hamper the introduction of HiMD being accepted in the marketplace. But then again, Sony has had a less-than-stellar track record of marketing their products, so I dunno....

About the prices for DAT decks I talked about in my last post, I forgot to state that those prices were for *new* DAT decks. Usually a used DAT deck, like the TCD-D8 and the PCM-M1 decks you mentioned, ususally go for under $500. Pardon moi, I failed to state the $700-2000 is for new DAT decks, used ones can obviously be had for much cheaper.

As for ATRAC, who cares if it's lossy? As long as it's sounds good, and has no audible compression artifacts (to my ears, and probably everyone else's), who cares? Lemme tell you, I've listened to a LOT of ATRAC audio, and it sounds as good as PCM to me. I can't say the same for MP3, epsecially if it's compressed with a crappy codec (which is pretty much any codec not made by Fraunhofer IIS, IMHO). MP3 can be quite littered with artifacts.

And regarding 24/192, I think ATRAC could be adapted for this resolution, considering HiMD has the storage space to make it possible. But, 24/192 doesn't seem totally ready for prime time to me, considering most sound cards out there max out at 16/48 (like my SB Live 5.1). More listeners would need a higher-end sound card like an SB Audigy 2 (which does 24/192) or even a M-Audio Audiophile 2496 (which ranks in lower at 24/96) to really make recording in 24/192 worthwhile. Plus, 24/192 would definitely be the resoultion to record at if you plan to burn a DVD-Audio disc from the recording, but most people have only 16/48 soundcards, and still listen to Red-Book audio CDs (burned from recordings here or commercially pressed) at 16/44.1, so I kinda feel 24/192 is overkill for the time being. Plus the SD 722 is pretty pricey, at about $2000, but then again, by the time it takes DAT's throne (as well as other portable hard disk/flash card recorders), it might be quite affordable. But that will be probably a while yet.... But, then, with it's massive hard disk built-in, or a large memory card, no one will have to worry about changing tapes, plus it will have enough storage space to record in the highest resoultions, even if it's 4-terabit resolution sampled at 256 Exahertz... :):):)

-Ryan

This post was modified by Ryan Schweitzer on 2004-06-16 18:41:59

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Jun 16, 2004 1:54pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

Well, doesn't a DAT user have to change out tapes in a long show as well, even if it's a 90 minute cassette during a longer set? At least HiMD will have a smidgen more recording time, about 100 minutes, if it's being recorded with 44.1/16 Stereo PCM, (which usually uses up 10 megabytes per minute). I could see having to change out a 74-min MD during a set, but doesn't the same go for a 60 or 90 minute DAT?

A 90m (that's meter, not minutes) DAT holds > 180 minutes of music. I've never run out of tape for a set yet.

Also, I have confidence that HiMD will be quite reliable, considering it isn't a dropout-prone tiny-assed 4mm strip of plastic with highly-refined rust coated on it being dragged across a spinning helical recording head at 1500 rpm.

I find it interesting that you would be so sure a technology no one's used yet would be so much more reliable than one that apparently you've never used and have only "heard" is unreliable.

Plus, Sony's technologies always seem to be quite reliable in general. I haven't seen a unreliable stinker from Sony yet, Sony's only weakness is their inability to market their technologies (ie Betamax, a technically superior format to VHS, but marketed shoddily) , usually they're quite well-engineered.

You would agree that the Sony TCD-D8 and M1 DAT recorders are well-engineered products then. There's something we agree on. :)

And if DAT is the standard that pros use, then why do HHB and Marantz have professional-grade MD recorders in their product lines?

I've never seen a taper use a "professional grade" MD recorder. Probably because for the same price (or maybe less) you can get a DAT without all the pitfalls of MD.

I've heard that NPR uses MD extensively for field recording, plus MD in general is quite extensively used in the radio broadcasting industry in general. MD is just as good as DAT for pro recording, IMHO, otherwise the radio industry wouldn't use MD. MD has pretty much replaced the endless-loop tape cart in radio, although automated hard-disk based systems are supplanting MD in radiuo broadcasting.

The needs of an audio taper and the needs of the radio industry are very different.

As for the cost of HiMD discs, doesn't a 90 min DAT cassette cost around $6? I would assume that a HiMD disc would at the most cost about the same, probably even less, so as not to hamper the introduction of HiMD being accepted in the marketplace. But then again, Sony has had a less-than-stellar track record of marketing their products, so I dunno....

A 90m DDS tape costs me $2.65. I'm willing to bet a Hi-MD disc is likely to be much more than that.

As for ATRAC, who cares if it's lossy? As long as it's sounds good, and has no audible compression artifacts (to my ears, and probably everyone else's), who cares? Lemme tell you, I've listened to a LOT of ATRAC audio, and it sounds as good as PCM to me. I can't say the same for MP3, epsecially if it's compressed with a crappy codec (which is pretty much any codec not made by Fraunhofer IIS, IMHO). MP3 can be quite littered with artifacts.

There's nothing wrong with ATRAC per se, but there's no doubt that PCM is preferable. Therefore given the choice why wouldn't you go with the medium that recorded to PCM? The bigger problem with the MD recorders is the AD is absolute crap in every single one of them. The D8's AD isn't great but even it's still light years ahead of an MD's.

And regarding 24/192, I think ATRAC could be adapted for this resolution, considering HiMD has the storage space to make it possible.

Why on earth would you do this? If you are recording @ 24/192, clearly you are looking for the highest fidelity possibly. Why would you use a medium that discards DATA? That makes 0 sense.

Also I believe the standard for DVD-A is 24/96, not 24/192, but that's not really important. I wasn't claiming that the poster needed 24/192, just that that is the direction audio taping is headed. There's no reason to believe it will be necessary to record on a medium such as MD or Hi-MD in the near future. There are already better technologies for an audio taper's needs on a similar price level.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tuck30 Date: Jun 16, 2004 12:45pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

i use 3 hour dat tapes and they cost 2.50
i don't have any fancy numbers fer ya but DAT can't be beat...the only thing that will come close is a lap top...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ryan Schweitzer Date: Jun 16, 2004 1:50pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

3 hour DAT tapes? I thought the longest they came in was 120s? Just curious, are you recording on a 90 min tape using the length-doubling LP mode (32 KHz at 12 bits), hence 3 hours?

-Ryan

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Jun 16, 2004 2:14pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

Well, doesn't a DAT user have to change out tapes in a long show as well, even if it's a 90 minute cassette during a longer set? At least HiMD will have a smidgen more recording time, about 100 minutes, if it's being recorded with 44.1/16 Stereo PCM, (which usually uses up 10 megabytes per minute). I could see having to change out a 74-min MD during a set, but doesn't the same go for a 60 or 90 minute DAT?

A 90m (that's meter, not minutes) DAT holds > 180 minutes of music. I've never run out of tape for a set yet.

Also, I have confidence that HiMD will be quite reliable, considering it isn't a dropout-prone tiny-assed 4mm strip of plastic with highly-refined rust coated on it being dragged across a spinning helical recording head at 1500 rpm.

I find it interesting that you would be so sure a technology no one's used yet would be so much more reliable than one that apparently you've never used and have only "heard" is unreliable.

Plus, Sony's technologies always seem to be quite reliable in general. I haven't seen a unreliable stinker from Sony yet, Sony's only weakness is their inability to market their technologies (ie Betamax, a technically superior format to VHS, but marketed shoddily) , usually they're quite well-engineered.

You would agree that the Sony TCD-D8 and M1 DAT recorders are well-engineered products then. There's something we agree on. :)

And if DAT is the standard that pros use, then why do HHB and Marantz have professional-grade MD recorders in their product lines?

I've never seen a taper use a "professional grade" MD recorder. Probably because for the same price (or maybe less) you can get a DAT without all the pitfalls of MD.

I've heard that NPR uses MD extensively for field recording, plus MD in general is quite extensively used in the radio broadcasting industry in general. MD is just as good as DAT for pro recording, IMHO, otherwise the radio industry wouldn't use MD. MD has pretty much replaced the endless-loop tape cart in radio, although automated hard-disk based systems are supplanting MD in radiuo broadcasting.

The needs of an audio taper and the needs of the radio industry are very different.

As for the cost of HiMD discs, doesn't a 90 min DAT cassette cost around $6? I would assume that a HiMD disc would at the most cost about the same, probably even less, so as not to hamper the introduction of HiMD being accepted in the marketplace. But then again, Sony has had a less-than-stellar track record of marketing their products, so I dunno....

A 90m DDS tape costs me $2.65. I'm willing to bet a Hi-MD disc is likely to be much more than that.

As for ATRAC, who cares if it's lossy? As long as it's sounds good, and has no audible compression artifacts (to my ears, and probably everyone else's), who cares? Lemme tell you, I've listened to a LOT of ATRAC audio, and it sounds as good as PCM to me. I can't say the same for MP3, epsecially if it's compressed with a crappy codec (which is pretty much any codec not made by Fraunhofer IIS, IMHO). MP3 can be quite littered with artifacts.

There's nothing wrong with ATRAC per se, but there's no doubt that PCM is preferable. Therefore given the choice why wouldn't you go with the medium that recorded to PCM? The bigger problem with the MD recorders is the AD is absolute crap in every single one of them. The D8's AD isn't great but even it's still light years ahead of an MD's.

And regarding 24/192, I think ATRAC could be adapted for this resolution, considering HiMD has the storage space to make it possible.

Why on earth would you do this? If you are recording @ 24/192, clearly you are looking for the highest fidelity possibly. Why would you use a medium that discards DATA? That makes 0 sense.

Also I believe the standard for DVD-A is 24/96, not 24/192, but that's not really important. I wasn't claiming that the poster needed 24/192, just that that is the direction audio taping is headed. There's no reason to believe it will be necessary to record on a medium such as MD or Hi-MD in the near future. There are already better technologies for an audio taper's needs on a similar price level.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ryan Schweitzer Date: Feb 7, 2007 12:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

Ok, I know my last reply to this thread was about 2+ years ago, but I came across this thread again, and I still have some questions for mr. thoman8r (if he even comes across this thread again as well).

"I find it interesting that you would be so sure a technology no one's used yet would be so much more reliable than one that apparently you've never used and have only "heard" is unreliable."

But I've heard it from people I know who've worked with DAT, as well as having some actual experience with the format, mind you. I work part-time at a public radio station here in town, and me and my boss there got to talking about DAT (which was used at the station about a decade or more ago). My boss told me all the trouble and hassle he had with DAT in the past, mainly dropouts and such. And when I was playing back a DAT tape once at the station, I did hear a couple of dropouts. The deck was properly maintained (and the tape hadn't had very many passes), it's just you can't expect too much from a 4mm wide wind of tape in a cassette. I've never had the same experience with MD.

"I've never seen a taper use a "professional grade" MD recorder. Probably because for the same price (or maybe less) you can get a DAT without all the pitfalls of MD."

First off, what pitfalls? I've used MD for quite a while, and limited recording times aside with standard MDs (with the exception of MD-LP & HiMD), it's a rock-solid format. Plus, since the 2+ years that have passed from our last debate here, I still haven't heard any criticisms toward HiMD's performance.

"The needs of an audio taper and the needs of the radio industry are very different."

In what ways? Both tapers and radio producers record audio on-location, no? And I'm sure radio producers (namely those in public radio, i.e. NPR, PRI, and such) record the same amounts of audio time-wise that jamband tapers do, but in their case, interviews of people or natural sound for use as production elements for a radio news story. Probably sometimes even more than a taper, as in hours & hours, depending on the complexity of the story or how many people need to be interviewed. I don't see a difference between taper & radio feature recording, save for the more elaborate, esoteric, & somewhat eldritch mic setups tapers have, while a radio producer would use a more utilitarian (but still high-performance) model of mic.

"There's nothing wrong with ATRAC per se, but there's no doubt that PCM is preferable. Therefore given the choice why wouldn't you go with the medium that recorded to PCM? The bigger problem with the MD recorders is the AD is absolute crap in every single one of them. The D8's AD isn't great but even it's still light years ahead of an MD's."

But AD/DA chipset technology would have have to taken leaps and bounds, even in the lowest end of MD decks, since the TCD-D8's debut 15 or so years ago. Both the D8 & M1 have been around a pretty long while, and as with all technologies, what was high-end back then is now commonplace. An entry-level MD/HiMD recorder nowadays would more than likely have a AD/DA stage comparable to a DAT recorder of yore such as a D8. If this weren't the case, all our Intel Core Duo-based PCs would still be running MS-DOS 3.3.

"A 90m DDS tape costs me $2.65. I'm willing to bet a Hi-MD disc is likely to be much more than that. "

But yes, those are DDS, not DAT, tapes. DDS tapes, albeit technically superior to DAT-branded tapes, don't have the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) royalty costs attached to them, if I am not mistaken. So, that's a bit of an unfair comparison. I will concede though, that HiMD discs are more expensive, about $5.99 a piece (at least from bhphotovideo.com). But with ATRAC3Plus, you can record 34(!)hours on the same disc. Oh, but I forgot, ATRAC and its ilk are the anti-audio to you all, even though it sounds pretty transparent to me. If you don't care about lossy compression, but do care about it still sounding decent (like ATRAC), HiMD is a bargain.

"There's no reason to believe it will be necessary to record on a medium such as MD or Hi-MD in the near future. There are already better technologies for an audio taper's needs on a similar price level."

I do concur there, the whole subject of DAT recording is getting quite moot, what with most tapers now resorting to recording directly to hard disk (either on a laptop outfitted with external A/D audio gear, or standalone hard disk recorders), or even directly to memory card recorders. With harddisk & memory card storage space increasing with the cost of such decreasing, that would be the best way to go anyway. But HiMD recorders are quite a bit more portable than a laptop, and less expensive than a standalone HD/memory recorder, and can record 35-45 hours or more on HiMD, if you don't mind the compression.

But, as the old maxim goes, to each their own.

And irdial, thanks for replying to this thread as well. That's interesting that you were using the digital outs/ins, sounds like the error correction technologies for DAT weren't completely refined then (at least for that model of deck). It's good to see someone backing me up, and straight from the horse's mouth even. ;)

-Ryan

This post was modified by Ryan Schweitzer on 2007-02-07 08:00:01

This post was modified by Ryan Schweitzer on 2007-02-07 08:08:35

This post was modified by Ryan Schweitzer on 2007-02-07 08:11:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: alanizj Date: Feb 7, 2007 12:46am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Best device for live recording

you know... i owned a HiMD player.... and while i loved the qualityof the sound and the affordability of the media... after about 4 months i started having problems with the unit it self. Somtimes it would record and save, and i would be able too listen to what i recorded.... then i would go back mabey a half day later an it would read CANNOT PLAY OR RECORD.... then ask if i would like to format it. Then one day I ejected the disk and a little peice fell out of the unit. Turns out it was the peice that records to the disk....and that was the end of my MD player.
So I decieded to buy a M-audio Microtrack 24/96. First thing it has no mocing parts to be worried about. Second it records in WAV and Mp3 and You get to choose the the bit rate too. yah, the compact flash cards are a little on the expensive side, but if you look you can get a good deal. I got a 4gig card for 80 bucks. It comes with a pretty decent stereo mic kind of like the one that comes with the MD recorder, but with much better frequency responce. It also has a 1/8 inch stereo plug, 1/4 inch L/R plugs, L/R Monitor outs ect... The Only thing is the battery cant be changed...its internal, so there is a chance for running out of juice. But its been reliable and easy to use.
PeaceouT
Jake

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Max123456 Date: Nov 18, 2006 4:09pm
Forum: etree Subject: Sony Atrac AD Walkman and SonicStage

I am am an American Teacher living and working in China. I've got a Sony Walkman Atrac AD, and I was wondering if you can help me. Whenever I try to put music on it using SonicStage, I am immediately directed to an Internet Site that tells me that the software is only for the United States. I bought the Walkman here in China, so I dont' understand. Is there a version of SonicStage that will work with my walkman here in China. If so, email me at fxjuntao at safe-mail dot com.

Please help....
Max.